Map of Sea Level Trendshttp://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/map-sea-..."Please note that these trends have been determined for only an eighteen-year (1992 - 2010) period, and reflect the impact of decadal scale climate variability on the regional distribution of sea level rise. Additionally, local sea surface height trends and variations are a result of many factors, including (but not limited to) local crustal displacement, glacial isostatic adjustment, steric effects, and even local wind patterns. Therefore you should consider these effects in interpreting local sea surface height time series derived from our gridded data sets."

Sea-level theory cuts no ice CLIMATE science faces a major new controversy after Britain's Met Office denounced research from the Copenhagen summit that suggested global warming could raise sea levels by more than 1.8m by 2100. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/se...

I don't think SpaceBlues has worked out the meaning of 'acceleration' yet, but be assured that no acceleration of sea level rise has occurred for 100 to 150 years.Global sea level change: Determination and interpretationBruce C. Douglas - NOAA, National Oceanographic Data Center, Washington, D.C.http://geology.uprm.edu/MorelockSite/morelock...IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions-There is no evidence for any acceleration of sea level rise in data from the 20th century datahttp://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_t...

Really, because Topex/Poseidon didn't cover the range they tossed the data? I don't think that makes sense, but I suppose there's a reason for that.

In the text they go from 1658 records down to 945 records but don't give us any numbers as to how many were eliminated for the five reasons tabulated above. Residual Trends <10 mm/yr is reasonably objective. The other four listed are somewhat subjective without any guidelines as to what constitutes unsuitable locations, too much noise, too much fragmentation, or how much disagreement with other records is allowed or how near by they must be. After combining the 945 records there was another group of records eliminated for having no useful data. What was not useful? As far as Im concerned, there is room for some subjectivity in perhaps several hundred deletions of data.

A simple analysis of the data yields one thing, and the process along with the above editing criteria yields the opposite.Now even though there's a difference in sign, if the two time lines were close no one would care, but as you can see, http://i55.tinypic.com/2vt6z9e.jpgthey're not.

It's obvious that what Church and White have done is edit the data base. There isn't anything else that would result in such a large deviation from a straight forward analysis of the PSMSL tide gage record.

Here's link to the tide gage data that Church & White used:ftp://ftp.marine.csiro.au/pub/ white/church_white_gmsl_2011_t g_list.zipThere's a read me file and a listing.

<quoted text>I don't think SpaceBlues has worked out the meaning of 'acceleration' yet, but be assured that no acceleration of sea level rise has occurred for 100 to 150 years.Global sea level change: Determination and interpretationBruce C. Douglas - NOAA, National Oceanographic Data Center, Washington, D.C.http://geology.uprm.edu/MorelockSite/morelock...IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions-There is no evidence for any acceleration of sea level rise in data from the 20th century datahttp://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_t...

Nice link to the Third Assessment Report (TAR) saying there's no evidence for sea level rise acceleration in the the 20th Century.

<quoted text>Nice link to the Third Assessment Report (TAR) saying there's no evidence for sea level rise acceleration in the the 20th Century.

Tidal guages have an underlying problem of isostatic rebound as the earths crust is slowly rising due to the loss of the weight of ice cover from the last ice age. Also do not neglect the impoundment of water in large fresh water lakes and the irrigation of vast land areas preventing water from reaching the ocean. Perhaps satellite measurements would give a better picture.....

White (2011) reported measurements of near-global sea level made using satellite altimeters.[28] Over the time period January 1993 to April 2011, these data show a steady increase in global mean sea level (GMSL) of around 3.2 mm per year, with a range of plus or minus 0.4 mm per year. This is 50% larger than the average rate observed over the 20th century. White (2011) was, however, unsure of whether or not this represented a long-term increase in the rate.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_leve...

Indications are that sealevel rise rate is increasing, but the time period for statistical significant measure to be extracted from noise is quite long in years. However, the satellite data does show this increase. We just do not know if it is statistically significant at this point.

Tidal guages have an underlying problem of isostatic rebound as the earths crust is slowly rising due to the loss of the weight of ice cover from the last ice age.

For any individual location, it is the relative sea level change that is important. Isostatic rebound only figures in if you are trying to figure out the total volume change of the world's ocean. Otherwise, it doesn't matter.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

Also do not neglect the impoundment of water in large fresh water lakes and the irrigation of vast land areas preventing water from reaching the ocean. Perhaps satellite measurements would give a better picture.....

I posted this graphic earlierhttp://i54.tinypic.com/2qtl828.jpgbut it bears repeating. The satellite record shows that if anything the rate of sea level rise has been trailing off since 1993.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

White (2011) reported measurements of near-global sea level made using satellite altimeters.[28] Over the time period January 1993 to April 2011, these data show a steady increase in global mean sea level (GMSL) of around 3.2 mm per year, with a range of plus or minus 0.4 mm per year.

The rate is decreasing, not increasing. Unless of course if you edit the data to suit your purpose.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

Indications are that sealevel rise rate is increasing, but the time period for statistical significant measure to be extracted from noise is quite long in years. However, the satellite data does show this increase. We just do not know if it is statistically significant at this point.

Tidal guages [sic] have an underlying problem of isostatic rebound as the earths crust is slowly rising due to the loss of the weight of ice cover from the last ice age.

I'm surprised you posted that, professor, because you, of all people, should know that not all land areas were affected by isostasy.The UK, for example, Scotland is experiencing isostatic rebound, while southern England is subsiding.Both phenomena are measurable and can therefore be added or subtracted from measuerments taken by tide, "guages."

I see Topix thought I was putting up a link, I should have written:ColoradoSeaLevel dot edu

The chart shows a rising sea level for most of the period with a dip the last few months. Perhaps this is due to higher rainfall and consequent lag of water returning to the sea. Also there have been major earthquakes with consequent subsidence of the ocean floor. It is possible that short termed falling sea levels occur but the long term trend is ever upwards.

<quoted text>Seallevel rises and falls with regularity.<quoted text>Perhaps?<quoted text>Are you suggesting that oceans are sinking into Earth's crust?<quoted text>Isn't that the norm during an interglacial, professor?

Do you suppose the polar bears are responsible?

If the ocean gains water from melting land ice, it gains mass. Since the ocean and continents are "floating" on the magma it is reasonable that when the ice melts the supporting crust will rise. Likewise as the ocean gains water, it will cause the ocean floor to subside.

<quoted text>The chart shows a rising sea level for most of the period with a dip the last few months. Perhaps this is due to higher rainfall and consequent lag of water returning to the sea. Also there have been major earthquakes with consequent subsidence of the ocean floor. It is possible that short termed falling sea levels occur but the long term trend is ever upwards.

Your side of the coin when they talk about increasing rates aren't talking about short term variations such we are seeing right now, they are talking about a long term acceleration. The Church and White paper says 0.13 mm/yr so if it's going up 3.20 mm/yr now, in ten years they're saying it should increase to 4.5 mm/yr. I'm telling you that there is utterly no empirical evidence to support that claim. Zero zip nada. Not a Goddamn shred.

I have invited you to download the satellite record and see for your self. Don't believe me, and don't believe Church, White, Rahmstorf or anyone else. Go to the source and check it out. It's not that difficult to do and the folks at Mr. Excel dot com will provide all the help you need.

<quoted text>Do you suppose the polar bears are responsible?If the ocean gains water from melting land ice, it gains mass. Since the ocean and continents are "floating" on the magma it is reasonable that when the ice melts the supporting crust will rise. Likewise as the ocean gains water, it will cause the ocean floor to subside.

So if 0.3mm of water flows from the land into the ocean over the course of a year and the ocean floor in turn drops 0.3 mm and the land rises 0.3 mm the net change in actual and relative sea level will be what?

Now consider that Colorado University says it needs to add 0.3 mm/yr to the actual seal level (from the center of the Earth) to compensate for that. I just need to understand why that is.

<quoted text>Your side of the coin when they talk about increasing rates aren't talking about short term variations such we are seeing right now, they are talking about a long term acceleration. The Church and White paper says 0.13 mm/yr so if it's going up 3.20 mm/yr now, in ten years they're saying it should increase to 4.5 mm/yr. I'm telling you that there is utterly no empirical evidence to support that claim. Zero zip nada. Not a Goddamn shred.I have invited you to download the satellite record and see for your self. Don't believe me, and don't believe Church, White, Rahmstorf or anyone else. Go to the source and check it out. It's not that difficult to do and the folks at Mr. Excel dot com will provide all the help you need.

There's evidence for the projected increase. I'm currently studying it. The matter has to do with dams, etc. I won't get into it just yet.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.